De informatiebehoeften van voedselallergische consumenten. Wat moet er op het etiket en hoe? Studium Generale 11 maart 2008 Judith R. Cornelisse#Vermaat Jantine Voordouw, Lynn Frewer Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group EuroPrevall project
Content of presentation
Introduction EuroPrevall project Aim study Study design Results Discussion and conclusion Next steps
Introduction
58% of children and 12% of adults have Food Allergy (FA) > 2530% of the population has to deal with it
EU directive 2003/89/EC Active since November 2005
12 potential allergens should be labelled: 1. Cereals containing gluten / Glutenbevattende granen 2. Crustaceans/ Schelp en schaaldieren 3. Egg/ Ei 4. Fish/ Vis 5. Nuts/ Aardnoten 6. Peanuts/ Pinda’s 7. Milk/ Melk (inclusief lactose) 8. Soya/ Soja 9. Celery/ Selderij 10.Mustard/ Mosterd 11.Sesame seed/ Sesamzaad en producten op basis van sesamzaad 12.Sulphur dioxide and sulphites / Zwaveldioxide en sulfieten 13.Lupine/ Lupine 14.Mollusc/ Weekdieren
Introduction The current food label: Terminology too complicated Incomplete Size Languages Information overload (Source: Ministerie VWS, 2005).
EuroPrevall project
Aim: To study the prevalence, cost and basis of food allergy across Europe
~65 partners from over 20 countries involved Different themes: 1. Epidemiology of food allergy across Europe 2. Environment, diet, microbes & parasites and their role in the development of food allergy 3. Allergen structure and the food matrix 4. Socio#economic impact of food allergy 5. Managing food allergies across Europe
Information needs of different stakeholders - results of stakeholder analysis
Allergic individuals / Patient groups
Health Professionals
General Public Family Doctors
Children
Industry and retailers
Regulators & Policy Makers
Allergy specialists Factory workers
Nurses Adults
Parents of allergic children
Dieticians Health visitors
Adolescents / Young People •Managing risks
Complementary medicine practitioners •What is Allergy? •How does it differ from food intolerance?
•Managing diagnosis
Caterers •Restaurants •Schools •Street vendors (?)
•Getting diagnosed
•Diagnosis / Gatekeeper function
•De minimis mandatory requirements
•One to one communication
•Corporate social responsibility •Training and awareness
•Information from assessors to develop policy measures •Dialogue between the public, stakeholders, assessors and regulators
Public unlikely to use specific websites Advertising (e.g. public transport) Articles (media dependent on local preferences) Youth organisations Day care-centres Teachers etc
Adapted from Miles, Valovirta and Frewer, 2006)
Information needs of allergic consumers
Adults
•How to manage risks Children
•How to manage diagnosis
Adolescents and Young People
Parents of allergic children
•How to get diagnosed in the first place
(Adapted from Miles, Valovirta and Frewer, 2006)
Aim/research questions
•
To establish the main problems food allergic consumers encounter concerning food labelling.
•
To understand the food allergic consumers’ preferences about food labelling in a realistic shopping environment.
•
To understand the preferences of food allergic consumers for different information strategies
Study design
Qualitative research 40 FA consumers in the Netherlands and Greece
Allergies: peanuts/nuts, milk, egg (severity varies) 20 adults with FA + 20 parents of FA children
Half of sample in familiar, other half in unfamiliar shopping environment Shopping list with 15 ‘problematic’ items Observe behaviour and question on preferences Present new information scenarios Data analysis: coding transcripts in Atlas
Study design: Shopping list Shopping List 1. Ready meal Asian food 2. Smallest package of bread rolls 3. Apple pie (second choice other fruit pie) 4. Smallest package of readily prepared schnitzel coated with breadcrumbs (for vegetarians: corn burger) 5. Package of instant sauce for spaghetti 6. Package of pasta (spaghetti, macaroni, fussilini etc.) 7. Instant/powder or tinned chicken soup (for vegetarians: vegetable soup) 8. Mayonnaise 9. Jar of sandwich spread 10. Smallest available pack of cornflakes 11. A tub of margarine 12. Bag of flavoured crisps (Bolognese, paprika etc.) 13. Chocolate bar (75 or 100 grams) 14. Pack of biscuits 15. One dish/bowl of vanilla ice cream
Results concerning the label’s visibility
Font size of text is too small, not easy to read.
P 6: “Only what’s written on there is almost not readable, you almost need a magnifying glass for that one.”
Contrast / Place / format of allergen information and ingredient list must be modified for more visibility.
Pictograms helpful but not enough
P 18: “If there is a picture then I will check to see what it contains exactly … it would save a bit of time if you knew the pictures and what they meant off by heart.”
Languages too many + difficult to find national language.
Results concerning the contents of label
Ingredient list for inclusion criterion
Allergy information used for exclusion criterion
“well, if milk was listed in the allergen information, then I wouldn’t take it anymore, but if it was listed on the allergen information that is was not there, then I would still check myself just to make sure.”
Completeness labels
“...I don’t know whether it is potato, corn or wheat starch…they don’t specify it…”
Results concerning the contents of label (cont.)
Informationoverload
Precautionary labeling (“May contain”) restricts choices
Phone/email consumer information services for detailed information
Difficult terminology (e.g. chemical names, E#numbers, additives)
“I discovered later that whey powder was a milk product.”
Results
Personal experience Emotions
Consumers make more products themselves at home Cook separate meals in family # allergen free versus “normal” Eat fewer /omit snacks
Frustration Anger Disappointment, etc.
Candy Cookies cakes/pies, etc.
Assortment changes / recipe changes Cheapest products contain fewer additives, taste enhancers, etc.
In Czech Republic milk expensive and therefore not used in processed products ALDI doesn’t use milk as additives to keep prices low
Results
Shopping time
Retail Personnel
More time spent shopping / about same shopping time (routine) Don’t trust supermarket personnel because they lack knowledge about allergies More likely to trust personnel from specialist shops (e.g bakery, organic shop)
Using FSA lists Processed food products difficult to buy Money
Willing to pay more (example: goat’s milk 7 times more expensive than cow’s milk)
Results Differences between Greece and Netherlands
Greek FA consumers
Do not often resort to information services Lack allergen information on label Do not have allergen symbols on label The increase time spent on shopping is not a problem Make more product/dishes themselves at home
Dutch FA consumers
Concerned about variation in the recipe/assortment
Examples of information scenarios RFID Radio Frequency Identification Barcodes on bread rolls
Personal Shopping Assistant
Information terminals
Experimental labelling 1 3
Different examples were presented to get the preference. 2
Experimental labelling
Results Experimental labels
Symbols easy to use but not enough Meaning of symbols should be clear and uniform Written out allergy information Complete ingredients list Combination of symbols, allergen info (written), and complete ingredients list.
Discussion and conclusions
FA consumers
not satisfied with FA info available uncertain about safety, across the board.
Trust derived from personal experience NOT labels
FA consumers read label if
they have a serious allergy or the product in new
Discussion and conclusions (continued)
•
• • • • •
Readability of label should be enhanced • Font • Contrast • Format • Location on product Content of label needs to undergo processes of “re#writing” • Simple terminology • Accessible language “May contain” labeling, not adequate and limits choice FA info used as exclusion criterion (same for symbols) FA consumer willing to pay more for safe foods FA consumer open to new ICT solutions
Next steps
Stakeholder analysis: Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Spain, and Germany (finished) Develop and test information scenarios: ICT#solution (scanner, info terminal PSA), booklet, label (ongoing)
Thank you for your attention! For more information contact:
[email protected] or T +31 317 48 24 37 www.europrevall.org © Wageningen UR
